vol. 37, no. 9

oo.

ee rad e.. oth Feng

Volume XXXVIII

Volunteer attorney Dolores Donovan (left) and student

Rosa Della Casa discuss sex discrimination in high

schools.

San Francisco, December 1972 :

No. 9

Bay area girls seek admission

to high school shop courses

In at least one case filed last month, it was not even

necessary to go to court.

ACLU Foundation filed for a writ of mandate

requesting that Nila Seward, a student at Clayton

Valley High School, be admitted to woodshop. A

couple of weeks later, she was enrolled in the course

and the school also opened auto mechanics and

mechanical drawing courses to women students.

When Nila's case was filed, the Foundation also

joined the Youth Law Center in a suit on behalf of

_ Rosa Della Casa at South San Francisco High School.

Rosa wants to take auto mechanics and thus far, school

officials are denying her entrance.

Both girls went through all the normal channels in

the school administrations, but found no satisfaction.

In each case, they were told that the schools had a

policy of not admitting women to shop classes.

Still not willing to give up, the two turned to the

ACLU. Volunteer Attorney Dolores Donovan wrote a

letter to Nila's Principat calling his attention to the

Governor's Advisory Commission on the Status of

Women which sharply criticized sex discrimination in

the public schools.

One of the Commission's specific recommendations

was "`that career and vocational education and

counseling be greatly expanded, and that schools give

much greater encouragement to girls to undertake

education and training that make the most of their

potential and prepare them to meet responsibilities of

the future."

Nevertheless, it took the threat of a law suit before

Clayton Valley changed its policy concerning women

in shop classes. The South San Francisco case,

_ however, is still pending. School administrators there

claim auto courses should be limited to boys because

auto mechanics ``is primarily a male profession.''

Regardless of career effects, Donovan emphasized

"`that it is important for women to learn that all fields

are open to them.'' Suzanne Martinez, an Attorney at

the Youth Law Center, :explained that the suit

contends ``that the policy of excluding women from

shop classes violates the state and federal constitutions

as well as various educational and administrative code

provisions."' :

Nevertheless, Rosais still being denied admission to

the regular auto mechanics course although the School -

Board has offered an after-hours course for girls only.

Rosa says this alternative is also discriminatory. School

officials are required to file a response to the suit this

week. If it is not satisfactory, a hearing date will be set.

Key issues still unsettled despite ballot results

Last month's election results are

causing some rejoicing, some sorrow, and

_ afair amount of confusion among civil

libertarians throughout the State.

Of the six ballot propositions on which

ACLU-NC made recommendations, the

results were split with three being

favorable and three unfavorable.

Proposition 18, the Obscenity

Initiative, was soundly defeated by

California voters. This measure, authored

by State Senator John L. Harmer (R-

Glendale), would have upset the

""`redeeming social importance'' test for

dscenity and replaced it with a vague

qiteria based on ``contempory stan-

dards'' of undefined local areas.

ACLU opposed Proposition 18 on the

gounds that it was plainly un-

wnstitutional and it so strictly dr-

aimscribed what publications and movies

were permissable that it would have

resulted in censorship to the point of

absurdity. The initiative was defeated by a

margin of nearly 2-1.

PRIVACY PROSPECTS BRIGHT

Returns on Proposition 11 also provided

encouragement for expansion of the Billof _

Rights. The constitutional amendment,

which passed handily, adds privacy as an

inalienable right guaranteed in the

California State Constitution.

The scope and the limits of the

amendment are at this time undefined, but

it is clear that it will have little effect on

surveillance and invasion of privacy by the

Federal Government. Nevertheless,

ACLU attorneys are optimistic that forth-

coming test cases will greatly expand the

California citizen's protections against

state government meddling in private lif.

Finally, ACLU members can be pleased

that Proposition 22, the Farm Labor

Initiative, was defeated. Had it passed, the

constitutional rights of agricultural.

workers would have been severely

_ testricted. The proposed law clearly

threatened the very existence of the

United Farm Workers, virtually:

satutes which would make mandatory -

educational "campaign, ~ however, the

outlawing their organizing activities and ~

collective bargaining advantages. Even

sympathizing with a farm worker's

boycott could have become. criminal.

California voters defeated Proposition 22

overwhelmingly.

Three other propositions, two of which

passed and one which was defeated,

represent setbacks for civil liberties.

ACLU-NC has devoted much time and

gergy toward the abolition of capital

punishment, but Proposition 17, which

returns the Death Penalty to California,

passed by more by nearly a 2-1 margin.

DEATH PENALTY UNCERTAIN

Still, the future of the Death Penalty is

in a state of confusion. This arises from

the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court

decision in Furman v. Georgia overrides

ay interpretation of the California State

Constitution. That ruling held that the

Death Penalty could be meted out only

when the sentence was automatic and not

determined by a jury which is vulnerable

to prejudice.

Therefore, only mandatory death

penalties are legal in California, and the

only major crime for which this may exist

(the legal issue is in doubt) is the killing of

a non-inmate by a life-term prisoner. A

@mplication has arisen in a Norwalk,

`California case where Alexander Dukes

has been convicted of first degree murder,

which does not, and historically did not,

carry a mandatory death sentence.

Superior Court Judge Julius Leetham,

however, has ordered the jury to consider

the death sentence for Duke's punish-

ment.

Since even the leading proponents of

capital punishment agree that this move is

unconstitutional, it is very unlikely that

the gas chamber will be invoked in this

case. However, the constitutionality of

Proposition 17 will eventually have to be

tested in the courts.

Meanwhile, the amendment grants to

the State Legislature. power to write

death sentences applicable to other crimes.

For the time being, however, leading

legislators say no such statutes will be

passed.

Proposition 19 was another that was

supported by ACLU-NC but was defeated.

Criminal sanctions for the use and-

possession of marijuana would have been

lifted had the measure passed. Believing

marijuana use to be harmful neither to any

victim nor to society as a whole,the ACLU

endorsed this proposition with the hope

that law enforcement would waste less

time on restricting what should be a

private, individual act. Despite a good

TRIBUTION.

bottom portions of the statement.

Open letter to ACLU members

We have approximately 14,000 ACLU members in Northern California. In December,

we bill our total membership...and ONE THIRD of you respond. When you do that, 99-

44/100 per cent of your renewal goes for civil liberties work. When you don't, more

and more of your money goes to the U.S. Post Office, printers, Pacific Telephone for

repeated billings and phone calls, and an enormous amount of staff and volunteer time is

spent just to get your membership renewal for another year of ACLU survival. Our

rough estimate is that $8,500 was spent in this way in 1972. Because we know that you

would much prefer having your money work DIRECTLY in the tough fight to keep civil

liberties alive, and because the results of a questionnaire we sent to 2,500 members who

had not renewed by the end of September brought to light many areas of confusion about

our renewal system, we enclosed a ``Fact Sheet About ACLU Membership Dues'' with

the December 1 renewal reminder for the 1973 membership year. We hope you will take

a minute to read the material if you haven't responded already.

The fact of the matter is that , as desperately as we need your membership dues, we need

your support as a member of that small embattled group which deeply cares about the

survival of the Bill of Rights. There is strength in numbers. WE NEED YOU, YOUR

VOICE AND COMMITMENT, AS WELL AS YOUR FINANCIAL CON-

PLEASE FREE YOUR MONEY to dowhat you want it to do by sending your renewal

# NOW-TODAY if at all possible. THE U.S. POST OFFICE, THE PRINTER,

| PACIFIC TELEPHONE will xo be grateful to you, but your money will work directly 0x00A7

f for cvilliberties..and that's a good thing.

; My personal thanks to those of you who have already sent in your renewal; thanks to |

f you all for your past support ; and best wishes to you all for the New Year.

Editor's note: When returning your membership renewal, please enclose the top and

measure was defeated.

The Wakefield Amendment, or the

Anti-Busing Initiative, will be the first

proposition passed in November to be

tested in the courts. ACLU-Southern

California has filed an amicus brief in a

Santa Barbara school integration case.

That brief charges that Proposition 21 is

unconstitutional because it violates the

equal protection clause of the 14th

Amendment. The Santa Barbara School

District is voluntarily trying to integrate

its schools, but Proposition 21, if valid,

makes that illegal. The matter is now

_ before the State Supreme Court for review.

_ Howard Jewel 0x00A7

Chairman of the Board }

ACLU of Northern California

Ese Ge FU

December

aclu NEWS

Supreme Court removes abortion restrictions

Women seeking abortions in California will face greatly reduced restrictions following

a recent State Supreme Court ruling which found key portions of California's 1967

Therapeutic Abortion Act unconstitutional. ACLU-NC Foundation submitted an

amicus brief by former Legal Director Paul Halvonik.

In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Donald Wright, the high court ruled

that the criteria by which hospital staffs were to judge the legality of abortions were so

""impermissably vague'' as to be unconstitutional. Justices Stanley Mosk, Raymond

Peters, and Mathew Tobriner joined Wright in this opinion.

Prior to the Court's action, it was necessary for a woman to petition to a special

committee of doctors for permission to have an abortion. These committees were

required to grant permission only when a ` `substantial risk'' was demonstrated that the

mother's ``mental or physical health'' would be ``gravely impaired by continued

pregnancy,'' or that the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

DUE PROCESS DENIED BY VAGUE CRITERIA

Wright comments that these committees of doctors were so unclear about their duties

and how they should make their judgments that the ratios of approved applications

varied widely from time to time and place to place.

A clue to the dilemma is revealed by the fact' that recently nearly all applications for

abortions have been approved because doctors simply despaired at having to judge what

constituted ``physical or mental'' impairment.

Such allowances for un- -directed discretion by the doctors' committees constituted a

denial of `"due process'' according to Wright's opinion. Since standards and procedures

were so ill-defined, a woman seeking approval for an abortion would have no way to

judge how she must conform to the requirements contained in the Therapeutic

Abortion Act. ~

Parts of the law were retained by the Court, however, some of which were opposed in

the ACLU brief. The Court held that abortions must still be performed only in hospitals

accredited by a private hospital accrediting organization and that the abortion be per-

formed by a licensed physician.

ACLU CHALLENGED DISIGNATION OF HOSPITALS

Charging that accredited hospitals were sometimes inaccessible to the poor, the

ACLU brief argued that perfectly safe abortions can be performed in clinics or even

doctors' offices. The designation of accredited hospitals for abortion represents an

arbitrary decision by the legislature that has no valid medical reasoning and denies equal

protection to poor women.

Nevertheless, the Court held that the place the abortion was performed was not at

issue in this particular case and, therefore, did not change that portion of the Act. They

may have to face that issue in a later case however.

Justice Louis Burke, joined by Justices Raymond Sullivan and Marshall McComb

dissented to the striking down of portions of the Act on the grounds that those portions

were sufficiently clear to withstand challenge.

Despite the partial nature of the victory, Legal Director Charles Marson called the

Court's decision ``courageous and correct, another step toward the recognition of the

rights of women to control their own bodies.'' He cautioned, however, that it is still

possible for the Legislature to write new abortion laws that could reimpose restrictions

provided they are constitutional.

Governor Ronald Reagan and some state legislators have voiced outrage at the

Court's decision, and it is likely that abortion legislation will be proposed in the coming

session starting in January. For the present, however, thanks to the Supreme Court's

action, abortion on demand (prior to the 20th week of pregnancy and in an accredited

Franklin wins

unemployment,

but suit is

still pending

`Overturning administrative officials, an

Appeals Hearing Officer for the State

Unemployment Compensation Appeals

Board has recommended that former (c)

Stanford Professor H. Bruce Franklin

should be paid unemployment insurance

benefits. The officials had denied him

benefits on the grounds that ``militant''

activism made him unacceptable to other

universities for employment.

Represented by ACLU volunteer at-

torney Larry Sleizer, Franklin won the

recommendation when the referee decided

his political activity was an exercise of

constitutionally guaranteed free speech

and not sufficient cause for denial of (c)

benefits.

In the suit by ACLU Foundation to

reinstate Franklin to his post in the

English Department Faculty, Stanford has

moved for dismissal. The University

argues that Franklin has received ad-

ministrative hearings and has no right to

contest these in court since his contract

should be read to exclude all remedies

beyond a hearing by the Advisory Board

which recommended his dismissal.

Stanford also contends that it is not a

state-supported agency and therefore not

bound to governmental restrictions

embodied in the Bill of Rights. They

further claim that Franklin should not

even be permitted to try to prove that it is

a government institution.

ACLU's response, written by Legal

Director Charles Marson and Sleizer,

points out that the contract says nothing

of the sort and that, in any event,

provisions of the California Labor Code

prohibiting firing for political activity |

clearly apply.

The brief argues that Stanford's history

and legal structure raise enough doubts

about its private status that evidence on

the matter is surely warranted to show

that the University should be bound by

constitutional guarantees.

Oral argument on the motion to dismiss

will take place this month in Santa Clara

County Superior Court.

hospital) is a virtual reality in California.

Cc fellfer

WITH THE :

BON iC Hae ee 2

AUTCIPATE~ vest

ANleol / : :

wD a

He WIRES.

SIRS

UPPRESS|

AIDS

ne

ALL THAT

OM

BODINS

He WAR? { { :

: i

j Eee co

Pe sues Army, FBI for secret documents

Congress attempted to reduce the ability of the Executive

branch of the government to hide information from the public

by passing the Freedom of Information Act on Independence

Day, 1966. That law provided that files should be made

available on request unless they met certain criteria, principally

that they must be kept secret if Secrecy would be in the interest

of the national defense.

_In 1969, ACLU-NC sued the Department of Defense for

Professor Julius Epstein who was at that time a researcher at the

Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford

University. Epstein had requested a file known as `"`Operation

Keelhaul'' from the U.S. Army but was denied. The

"*Keelhaul'' file is a report on the repatriation of about one

million Jewish and anti-communist refugees back to Russia

after World War II.

Epstein, who has studied these refugees since the early

1950's and is publishing a book on the episode, claims the

Allies knowingly cooperated with the Soviets by forcing the

refugees to return against their will to Russia where they were

either executed or died in slave labor camps.

Denying access to the file, the District Court and the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the

Defense Department was justified in withholding the file

because an Executive Order of the President declared the report

- crucial to national defense. Epstein believes that the real reason

was that the government did not want everyone to know that

after fighting Hitler because he represented all things un-

democratic, our army helped Stalin commit equally repugnant

crimes against humanity.

Following the renewed interest in government secrecy raised

by the release of the Pentagon Papers, the Executive Order

protecting the Keelhaul documents was revoked. The Army's

defense in the 1969 case was thereby substantially weakened.

Last month, National ACLU filed twin lawsuits in federal

court in Washington, D.C. to again try to implement the

Freedom of Information Act. ACLU-NC Legal Director Charles

_ Marson explained that the suits have been re-opened in

Washington because that court has had the most experience

with the government's resistance to releasing information.

- Along with the Epstein complaint, National also filed suit for

Professor Allen Weinstein, a historian and director of the

American Studies Program at Smith College. Weinstein seeks

access to the `"Hiss-Chambers'' file from the Federal Bureau of

Investigation. The document contains all of the FBI's records of

its investigation of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers bet-

ween 1933 and 1952.

Looking beyond his own scholarly pursuits, Weinstein

commented, ``I view this suit as part of a larger effort by

historians to open up unnecessarily restricted files to competent

researchers. Our professional organizations have taken a keen

interest in the whole problem of government restrictions on

scholarship.''

Both the Army and the FBI are claiming that the Freedom of

Information Act does not apply to the requested documents.

Marson pointed out that ``it is now clear that none of these

documents is at all vital to national defense and that the Army

and FBI are only attempting to keep information that would be

embarassing to the government from the public.''

He emphasized that the public's ``right to know'' is crucial

to the maintainence of open government, and if these suits

succeed, they will represent a blow to the indiscriminate use of

`Top Secret' classifications to thwart public scrutiny of the

government's actions.

LEGISLATIVE

December

aclu NEWS

Equal Rights Amendment

approved by legislature

November 7 1972

California has become the 22nd state to

ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (the

_ 27th Amendment) to the United States

Constitution. Ratification came after a

long and often bitter fight to get the

amendment out of the Senate Rules

Committee where it had been stalled by

Senator James Mills. Senator Mills

released the bill only after a strong

campaign on behalf of women's rights

organizations, particularly the National

Organization of Women. On November

9, 1972 the full Senate voted 29 to 9 to

ratify the amendment. The Assembly

moved swiftly to join in the ratification by

a vote of 54 to 16 on November 13. The

resolution was introduced into the Senate

by Senator Mervyn Dymally and in the

"Genesis"

Assembly by Assemblyman Walter

Karabian.

The Equal Rights Amendment reads as

follows:

`Section 1. Equality of rights

under the law shall not be denied or

abridged by the United States or by

any State on account of sex.

**Section 2. The Congress shall have

the power to enforce, by appropriate

legislation, the provisions of this

article.

"Section: 3: This canneries shall

take effect two years after the date of

ratification.''

A complete legislative report of the just

completed 1972 session will follow in the

next ACLU News.

in public schools

Staffers embark on new duties

Mike Callahan

Associate Editor of his student newspaper

and did publicity for the U.C. Student

Lobby in Sacramento. .

Another addition to the staff is Larry

Sleizer, Chairman of the Mid-Peninsula

Chapter and a June graduate of Stanford

Law School. He has taken over the duties

of Associate Staff Counsel. This came

about due to an unexpected response to

our Fall Special Fund Appeal. The Point

Foundation offered a one-year grant to

Three staff changes went into effect this.

past month and the newcomers are quickly

learning their tasks.

This issue of the ACLU News marks

Mike Callahan's initiation as the paper's

editor and the Affiliate's Public In-

formation Director. Mike took over the

new job after serving as Press Assitant on

the Proposition 17 Campaign. He replaces

Bill Kane who left the post to return to his

previous career in marketing research and

consultation.

A recent graduate from the University

of California at Santa Barbara, Mike was

Editor's note: The State Board of Education recently recommended that science

textbooks in the public schools should offer ``evolution'' and ``creation'' as op-

posing theories of the beginning of the universe. The ACLU is currently deter-

mining what the organization's response to this move should be. While hearings

were being held on the matter, ACLU Board member Paul Halvonik drafted the

following letter to the Board of Education. It well characterizes the natural in-

credulity at the Board of Education's recommendation.

Dear Sir:

The newspaper accounts have been vague and confusing but there seems to be

universal agreement that the State Board of Education is, in one manner or

another, introducing Genesis into the public school curriculum and that it is to be

taught not as an interesting religious theory or a charming folk-tale but as solid

scientific competition for Darwinism.

This I find surprising because a quick glance at my pocket supplement confirms that

the First Amendment and Article 13 Section 24 of the state Constitution have not

been repealed. That being the case, it should be clear that you do not have authority

to use the public schools to promote religious theories.

I assume that you do not intend to flaunt the Constitution which you have sworn to

defend. On the other hand, there are these newspaper stories. I wonder if you would

be good enough to clear this up for me and let me know exactly what the board's

intentions are.

Paul H. Halvonik

P.S. It would be singularly unwise for a School Board, of all bodies, to encourage

the treatment of "`and God created'' stories as fact. Could you honorably exclude

any such stories from the curriculum? Would you include this one, attributed to

Mark Twain? 0x00B0`First God created an idiot, but that was just for practice, then he

created a School Board.''.

Nota Bene

enable Larry to work for the Affiliate. In

his first case since joining the Staff, Larry

Larry Sleizer

won H. Bruce Franklin's appeal for

unemployment compensation.

Finally, Dorothy Ehrlich has joined the

staff as Membership Secretary, replacing

Pam Ford who left the organization after

nine years of devoted service. Dottie was a

CORO intern for us last Spring and since

then has been Assitant Coordinator for the

Death Penalty Campaign.

While in the CORO program, Dottie

graduated from the University of San

Francisco where she was a History major.

Dorothy Ehrlich

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March - Rocil July - August,

_ Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

Membership $10 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

aclu NEWS |

and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Jay Miller, Executive Director

Mike Callahan , Editor and Public Information Director

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-433-2750

Loyalty questions probe associations

force, violence, or any other unlawful means?

Attorneys who are handling cases

involving violations of Section 647(e) of

the California Penal Code which outlaws

"`refusing to identify yourself and account

for your presence,'' should take note of

these recent developments.

The Statute has been held un-

constitutional by a growing number of

municipal and superior courts in

California despite a California Court of

Appeals decision in 1967 upholding the

section (People v. Weger, 251 Cal. App.

2d 584 cert den. 389 US 1047 (1967) ).

1) People v. Kirk Ruppert McCarter,

June 24, 1971 (Municipal Court for

South Orange County Judicial District)

affirmed by Appellate Department of

Superior Court of Orange County People

v. McCarter, No. AP-1114 (February 1,

1972) transfer refused by Court of Appeal

4 Crim. NL. 5584 (March 3, 1972).

(2) People v. Grayson, No. H45413

July 28, 1972 (Municipal Court for City.

and County of San Francisco Dept. No.

13). People did not appeal.

(3) People v. Stephens, No. 42986,

October 25, 1972 (Municipal Court for

the Berkeley Albany Judicial District).

People did not appeal.

When Peter Cummings and Peter Rudd were interns at

Stanford University, they were denied entrance to a rotating

training program at Palo Alto Veterans Hospital because they

refused to answer questions about their political associations.

They sued the Civil Service Commission and a Federal Court

found that the questions were unconstitutional.

In September, the same two doctors requested employment at

the same hospital. They were asked the same questions that had

been declared unconstitutional with a few minor changes.

Again they refused to answer and again they were denied

employment. They sued the Civil Service Commission in

Federal Court again and won their case.

Now, the Government has appealed the decision of the

District Court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and

ACLU-NC Foundation has entered the case with an amicus

curiae brief authored by Associate Staff Counsel Peter

Sheehan.

Apparently, the Government is determined to make a test

case out of this set of questions although they have been ruled -

unconstitutional twice. The present form of the questions is as

follows:

(1) Are you now or within the past ten years have you been a

`member of the Communist Party, USA, or any subdivision of

the Communist Party, USA?

(2) Have you ever organized, or helped to organize, or

become a member of any organization or group of persons

which,during the period of your membership or association,

you knew was advocating or teaching that the Government of

_ the United States... should be overthrown or overturned by

If the answer to either question is ``yes,'' the applicant must

answer 7 other inquiries of a more specific nature.

Finding the questions unconstitutional, the District Court

said the first question ``dispenses with any requirement of

knowledge or specific intent. While the second question does

require knowledge, it makes no mention of specific intent.'

""Knowledge'' and ``specific intent'' have been recognized as

essential ingredients. for lawful loyalty questionnaires.

In the ACLU brief, Sheehan takes issue with the Executive

Order which authorized the loyalty questionnaire for Federal

employment in the first place. He argues that the relevant

sections of the Executive Order have. a disastrous ``chilling

effect'? because, in addition to being overbroad, they result in

multiple vagueness since both the standard governing when

inquiries may be made and the standard that describes the

conduct that can be Se into are hopelessly vague.

Ee explains that "`potential applicants will be much less

inclined to join, or even be linked with, any organization that

might impede their chances for employment.''

Malcolm Burnstein, an East Bay Attorney who is

representing Cummings and Rudd, points out that if the

Government succeeds in upholding these inquiries for

physicians in non-sensitive employment, they will have suc-

ceeded in greatly expanding the nature of the inquiries allowed

of Federal job applicants.

``The Government simply wants to increase its ability to

collect dossier information on the political activity of dissidents

by overturning earlier, less repressive court decisions,''

_Burnstein concluded.

CHAPTERS

December

aclu NEWS

Berkeley-A Ibany 2

Plans for ``watchdog'' committees -

have been completed and the Chapter i is

now seeking volunteers who are in-

terested in the program. One com-

mittee will work with the Berkeley City

Council and other governmental

bodies, while the other will attempt to

effect reforms through the Department

of corrections and oversee proposals for

two new prisons. Volunteers are asked

to write the Chapter at P.O. Box 121,

Berkeley, 94701.

Sonoma

Seeking greater representation for

members of racial and _ ethnic

minorities, the Chapter is pressuring

District Attorney John Hawkes to

actively recruit Chicanos, Blacks, and

Native Americans for his staff. In a

letter to Hawkes, Chapter Chairman

Bill Booth said ``agencies of justice in

_ Sonoma County must rigorously seek

racial and ethnic integration if they are

to fulfill their proper function.'' Newly

elected Board officers are Bernard

Sugarman, Chairman; Lee Torliatt,

Vice Chairman; Jack Rudinow,

Treasurer; and Edith Soules,

Secretary.

Mt. Diablo

The chapter is in the process of.

recruiting members to serve on the

Board of Directors and the various

committees. All interested persons are

requested to call Rose Bonhag,

evenings and weekends, at 283-3820..

Santa Clara

The Chapter won a partial victory in

a fight over a noise ordinance in the

City of Saratoga. Required notice for

amplified sound was reduced from 30 to

15 days, and exceptions were provided

to even that limit due to the Chapter's

efforts to guarantee Constitutional

rights in the ordinance. The $50 bond,

which the Chapter had opposed as an

unconstitutional tax on free speech,

was retained by the City Council

however.

San Francisco

Officers of the Board were elected

and several projects planned at the

Chapter's November meeting. Warren

Saltzman will serve as Chairman, with

Arthur Brumwasser, Sally Pall, and

Fran Strauss holding the Vice-Chairs.

Hartly Fleishmann and Peggy Sarasohn

were selected Secretary and Treasurer

respectively. The Board is in the .

process of establishing legislative and

lobbying committees to work with the

Board of Supervisors and various

county and city commissions. Also,

every effort is being made to develop a

telephone tree so that members can be

alerted to the needs of the Chapter.

Anyone who can help should call Fran

Strauss on Monday, Wednesday,

Friday at 433-2750 (evenings: Warren -

Saltzman at 586-6346, Sue Bierman at -

564-4047, or Fran at 673-1085).

Members are requested to begin saving

`serendipity'? for a Garage Sale

planned for the Spring.

Mid-Peninsula

Chapter Chairman Larry Sleizer won

a reversal in the Unemployment In-

surance Appeals. Board for George A.

Peabody. Peabody had been denied

unemployment benefits on the grounds

that his long hair and beard made him

unavailabie for work although these in

no way affected his ability to work. The

referee in the matter decided that such

criteria were improper for use in

determining eligibility and recom-

mended the payment of compensation

benefits to Peabody.

Fresno

In an effort to attract more members,

the Chapter is expanding its regular

monthly business meetings to include

programs on current issues that will be

of interest to all. This effort began with

a dinner meeting last Monday,

featuring Jay Miller, Executive

Director, and Laura Monroe,

Associate Director of ACLU-NC.

Subsequent meetings on special topics

will take place at the First Christian

Church in Fresno on the second

Monday of each month.

Monterey

New officers: were elected at the last

meeting. Pearl Carey will serve as

Chairwoman for the coming year and

Peter Lewis will be Vice-Chairman.

Elizabeth Harris was chosen Secretary,

and Mary Webb will have the

Treasurer responsibilities. The Chapter

is planning action in two suits. One

involves a young man who was refused

service at a Carmel grocery store on the

grounds that he was a homosexual, and

another which deals with banning of

books by the Salinas School Board.

Six seats added to Board

to increase ratio of women

Recognizing the underrepresentation of women and attempting to set an example for

an end to discriminatory patterns in other agencies, the ACLU-NC Board of Directors

voted at their last meeting to expand the size of the Board by six seats, all of which will

be filled by women.

This decision came after a National ACLU Committee suggested that affiliates `"take

affirmative and vigorous action within its own structure to increase significantly the

representation of women on all policy-making bodies and committees of the

organization.'

In response, the NC Women's Rights Gammitce submitted the proposal which was

adopted. The Committee reported it hesitated to expand the size of the Board, but after

discovering that no significant number of seats would be vacated until 1974, agreed on

the creation of six new seats.

At present, there are 31 Board members, six of whom are women. The new policy

will establish a:ratio of 12 women to 25 men. Finding that women comprise ap-

proximately 40 percent of the NC membership, the Board recognizes that its recent

action does not completely solve the problem of equal representation for women.

To help remedy this, further nominating committees will be instructed "`to make a

serious effort to seek out women nominees for the Board. Also, in order to maintain a

degree of intimacy on the Board, the resolution provided that of every two seats vacated

in the future, only one will be refilled until the Board is again at 31.

Since Chapter representatives on the Board are elected by Chapter membership, there

is no way the Board can control the ratio of these 14 members, four of whom are

women. Chapters are asked, however, to be mindful that women are adequately

represented throughout the leadership of their organizations.

If you have any suggestions for women to serve on the Board, please send their names

and background to Dorothy Patterson, Chairwoman of the Nominating Committee. To

be considered, all nominations should be received by the committee before January 8,

1973.

If you have any suggestions, you should call or write Ingrid Hanbrich at the ACLU-

NC office for the list of qualifications for Board membership. She can be contacted

during business hours at (415) 433-2750 or write 593 Market Street, San Francisco,

94105.

"Quotas" and "goals" discussion

Affirmative Action Programs pose a

difficult dilemma to civil libertarians.

Should the Government enforce

preferences for minority groups in

hiring and education? The USS.

Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare has demanded that any agency

receiving Federal aid must end

discrimination through plans which

would set goals for minority par-

ticipation.

On the one hand, some believe that

this policy favors members of

minorities to the exclusion of equally

qualified non-minority applicants.

They conclude that this is a clear denial

of ``equal protection of the Laws'' and

something the ACLU must oppose.

Others, however, hold that in light

of the centuries of oppression and

deprivation, a legal concept of

""compensatory equal protection''

must be developed to make up for the

wrongs of the past and to provide

minorities with true equality in

American society. These believe the

ACLU should actively support Af

firmative Action Programs. For many, -

the controversy boils down to whether

minority policies are to be charac-

terized as ``quotas'' or as ``goals.'"

Obviously, in a relatively closed job

market and in already over-crowded

colleges and universities, any plan to

increase minority participation is going

to intensify the friction.

These questions will be the topic of a

special meeting of all concerned

members of ACLU-NC to be hosted by

the San Francisco Chapter on Sunday,

January 21 at 4 p.m. The panel

discussion will be moderated by

Stanford Law Professor Anthony

Amsterdam at the Fireman's Fund

Building, 3333 California Street, San

Francisco. Mark the date on your

calendar and plan to attend.

FOR MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICE -:

"FISHING EXPEDITION"

Three submit to grand jury pressure, testify

Using ``contempt of grand jury'' charges, Guy Goodwin, Chief

of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice, has

succeeded in forcing two witnesses to testify before the Federal

Grand Jury and a third has promised to do so this month.

This occurred only after appeals for bail pending appeal of the

contempt charges went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and

were denied. Once bail had been refused, the witnesses could either

continue not to testify and await rulings on the contempt appeals in

jail, or talk. They chose the latter.

Now, the contempt appeals have been ruled moot in the Ninth

Circuit Court since the contempt violations were ""purged'' when

the three agreed to testify.

`As of today, six more witnesses have been called upon to answer

questions and all refused. Should the government offer them

immunity from prosecution, as is expected, they too are likely to

be found in contempt. Since there will be little chance of bail,

several of these have indicated they will go to jail and appeal the

contempt charges.

Only by such action can the conetrutionality of Goodwin's

tactics be challenged. Thus far, he has found the Grand Jury to be

an effective tool for probing citizens' political associations and

activities.. The Organized Crime Control Act contains a provision

that if a witness is offered immunity, he must testify whether it is

incriminating or not.

Goodwin is using this law to force people involved in leftist

politics to incriminate others. The two witnesses who testified

were asked about people they lived with, mail they and others

received, people they know and their political associations during a

period in 1971.

If the remaining 12 witnesses are found in contempt, ACLU-NC

and the National Lawyers Guild, representing them, will appeal

the charges. But, in view of the bail denial by the Supreme Court,

the witnesses will oe have to go to jail to await' an outcome of

the appeals.

Staff Counsel Joseph Reicha explained that the witnesses will

contend on appeal that the contempt charges should be overturned

because the govvernment failed to completely deny illegal elec-

tronic surveillance of the defendants and their attorneys. The

witnesses also contend that they are entitled to trial by jury before

being held in contempt and that the Grand Jury is improperly

probing into matters protected by the First Amendment.

Should these appeals fail, the witnesss will have only the choice

of staying in jail for the duration of the Grand Jury, estimated to be

another 16 months, or agree to testify. Either way, Guy Goodwin

and the Grand Jury will have struck a serious blow to the Bill of

Rights.

When writing about: change of address,

adjustments, complaint, renewal, etc.,

please attach mailing label to insure

prompt, efficient service. Correspondence

regarding these matters should be ad-

- ACLU Northern Cal.

Membership Dept.

593 Market St.,

San Francisco, Ca. 94105

ATTACH LABEL HERE

name (please print) phone no.

address apt. no,

city state zip code

`For uninterrupted delivery please give us

eight weeks' notice to process change.

Attach present label with old address and.

enter new address above.